Comments on new names and nomenclatural acts of amphibians and non-avian sauropsids established by Garsault 1764 and Laurenti 1768 (response to Dubois & Bour 2010)
Author
Welter-Schultes, F. W.
fwelter@gwdg.de
Author
Klug, R.
text
Zootaxa
2011
2011-04-11
2814
50
58
journal article
1175-5326
Scincus
Also here
Dubois & Bour (2010)
tried to consult a present-day classification for judging whether or not
Laurenti's 1768
use of the name
Scincus
was exactly in accordance with that of
Garsault 1764
.
Laurenti (1768: 55)
included two species,
Scincus officinalis
Laurenti, 1768
(a synonym of
Lacerta scincus
Linnaeus, 1758
) from
Egypt
(with reference to
Seba 1735
) and one from "
India
orientali". We see no evidence contrasting the assumption that in Laurenti's times Garsault's specimen would have been classified with that first species.
Dubois & Bour (2010)
showed that some recent authors have classified Garsault's animal as a different subspecies or species, and intended to designate
Scincus scincus
var.
laterimaculatus
Werner, 1914
from western
Algeria
as the
type
species for
Scincus
Garsault, 1764
(we regard this as invalid under Art. 69.1, as explained above).
But if
Dubois & Bour's (2010)
procedure would be accepted - what would happen if some day the group is once again split up into even smaller units, and we discover that Garsault's specimen would have belonged to once again another highly microendemic taxon from eastern
Morocco
? Who would decide which classification should be used if there were different taxonomic opinions in the community? Then
Dubois & Bour's (2010)
use of Garsault's name would eventually have been inappropriate in the same way as
Laurenti's 1768
use of the name, and (1) they would again have created another new name
Scincus
Dubois & Bour, 2010
(if we ignore here that this name was not expressly established as new, Art. 16.1), and (2) another author would have the right to fix once again a new
type
species for Garsault's name
Scincus
. And under each taxonomic classification the
type
species of the genus-group name would be different. This procedure would not be useful in the sense of providing stability of nomenclature. It would skip the basic ideas behind the Principle of Typification as expressed in Art. 61.1. So we would recommend to follow the Code as strictly as outlined above.